Why are the British so anti Europe?

micosoft · 15-09-2013 10:19PM

But it's not the EU's place to make this case. It's for British politicians or British civic society. Any hint of the EU doing so would be called "propaganda" just as you have posited that Obama (BTW Republicans are also suggesting Britain remain in the EU) is interference (contradicting yourself in one sentence). In any case you are deliberately avoiding the point again - you posited that UK leaving the EU would have no effect - I showed evidence that even the US is seriously concerned showing the global impact it would have.

But if you must look at the Confederation of British Industries - Britain's largest business lobby group. Front page - 8 our of 10 british business want to remain in the EU. They even conducted a fact finding mission to Norway which showed that their relationship (fax membership) was far worse for the UK's economic interests.

Face it. Your viewpoint is based on a wilful ignorance of the facts. Thirty years of steady drip drip of anti-EU propaganda & lies has warped the mind of the average British voter on Europe to the extent that it looks likely that the UK will leave the EU even though on every possible level, economic, political, social the consequences for the UK will be far worse then staying in. Not me saying this - British Industry saying it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But such is life. The EU will continue as I'm sure a (poorer) England/Wales with Scotland having it's own EU relationship. Ireland will have a mixed bag from it - some sectors winning some losing.

ewan whose army · 15-09-2013 10:33PM

micosoft wrote: »

But it's not the EU's place to make this case. It's for British politicians or British civic society. Any hint of the EU doing so would be called "propaganda" just as you have posited that Obama (BTW Republicans are also suggesting Britain remain in the EU) is interference (contradicting yourself in one sentence). In any case you are deliberately avoiding the point again - you posited that UK leaving the EU would have no effect - I showed evidence that even the US is seriously concerned showing the global impact it would have.

But if you must look at the Confederation of British Industries - Britain's largest business lobby group. Front page - 8 our of 10 british business want to remain in the EU. They even conducted a fact finding mission to Norway which showed that their relationship (fax membership) was far worse for the UK's economic interests.

Face it. Your viewpoint is based on a wilful ignorance of the facts. Thirty years of steady drip drip of anti-EU propaganda & lies has warped the mind of the average British voter on Europe to the extent that it looks likely that the UK will leave the EU even though on every possible level, economic, political, social the consequences for the UK will be far worse then staying in. Not me saying this - British Industry saying it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But such is life. The EU will continue as I'm sure a (poorer) England/Wales with Scotland having it's own EU relationship. Ireland will have a mixed bag from it - some sectors winning some losing.

Thats assuming Scotland would get independence a big if. Also the EU has not idea if Scotland would get automatic entry in the first place.

I don't think a UK EU exit is likely anyway that is assuming the Tories are going to remain into power, which is highly unlikely to say the least.

I think you miss my point, as I said if there was a Yes / No I would vote to remain in. I am just saying that the EU isn't all bells and whistles that some people think it is. The only real advantage in my eyes is trade, nothing else.

McDave · 18-09-2013 05:24PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

The EU isn't making us a case to remain in which I find surprising. The fact that Obama has got involved in UK politics something that isn't to do the US isn't doing them any favours. Alot of people in the UK don't care about the "Special Relationship" and want to see the back of the Americans messing with the UK. Obama is just going to make the EU even more unpopular.

I can't say anything about the EU in schools, we were never taught it. General Studies was an option that nobody took

That's simply not the EU's job. It's up to the British to decide what's in the EU for them, and what they in turn can bring to the table.

McDave · 18-09-2013 05:37PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

I am just saying that the EU isn't all bells and whistles that some people think it is. The only real advantage in my eyes is trade, nothing else.

No political state of affairs anywhere is ideal. Every scenario has its benefits and drawbacks.

On the advantages, I think most European countries see manifold political, security and broader economic benefits. Subconsciously, I think many Europeans feel that cooperation and coordination provides improved infrastructure, systems and opportunities. I think they're also more conscious of potential problems in less stable regions on their doorsteps such as Russia, the Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa, not to mention potential threats from China. And that it's smarter to be talking, planning and eventually coordinating militarily and security-wise.

The UK, like Ireland, is insular. It has also outsourced its foreign policy to the US. It still cannot bring itself to throw at least some of its lot in with Germany and France. It's not necessarily all poor judgement on its part. Personally I think France is not a straight-up partner. And the UK definitely feels overshadowed by Germany. But it's dependence on the US means it has abdicated a leading role in Europe, and I think that's a shame.

Why? Because Europe and the EU is far more than a simple trade arrangement. It's a forum and template for future cooperation on projecting Europe's common interests and providing for its common needs. Behind the EU's pragmatic facade there is potential for major political and security gains. That's how I see it anyway.

PercyBlakeney · 25-09-2013 12:03PM

WE have to realise that the EU, itself, is not the real body which is governing. More rules in fact originate in global bodies above the EU, with the EU just given the task of enforcing thses rules usually by statutory instruments which no individual countries governments are allowed to alter, and no national parliament allowed to question.

Bodies such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) or the Aarhus Convention on environmental issues spring to mind. Like it or not, the EU is a staging post en route to a world government where the people will be so far removed from the political process to render it undemocratic in any valid sense.

Just as the EU will not allow votes on whether or not the citizens of the EU want to

1. Keep the EU,
2. Reform the EU or
3. Abolish the EU

for fear of what they might find out, so no electorate will be consulted about the creep creep creep sleepwalking into handing over more and more bits of democracy. Its called “salami tactics” by the bureaucrats, as slice by slice they control more and more of the agenda and each slice itself hardly noticed, but each slice adding up to the whole salami , eventually.

There are actually some who argue black is white and the EU is more democratic than a time when we actually debated any of this, and when a vote by the people was respected.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2013 02:25PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Bodies such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) or the Aarhus Convention on environmental issues spring to mind.

The Aarhus Convention isn't a body. It's a policy that various countries have voluntarily signed up to, as are the policies of UNECE.

Just as the EU will not allow votes on whether or not the citizens of the EU want...

I'ma stop you there. If you believe that the EU has the power to prevent its member states from holding votes, you're not sufficiently informed for a reasoned discussion on this topic. Go find out how the EU works and come back to us.

PercyBlakeney · 25-09-2013 03:03PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Aarhus Convention isn't a body. It's a policy that various countries have voluntarily signed up to, as are the policies of UNECE.

Ireland has not signed up to either body, but the EU has signed up to both, and then implements the decisions via statutory instruments, which the Irish parliament has no power or competence to even discuss, let alone alter.

My simple point is not about whether that is good, bad or indifferent, but that illustrates the globalisation of decision making, and the increasing lack of power citizens now have about the laws which they have no ability to influence or make, but which they still have to obey.

Most citizens of the EU (and the world) are hazy about this, if they are even aware of where the decisions are made and the laws agreed. Many are still under the assumption that their own national parliaments have the last say or a veto, when in fact national parliaments have no power or competence in this area.

View · 25-09-2013 03:19PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Ireland has not signed up to either body, but the EU has signed up to both,

Ireland actively supported the EU's accession to both such conventions. Hence, Ireland supports measures adopted as a result of these conventions.

Why therefore are we supposed to have problem with this?

oscarBravo · 25-09-2013 03:21PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Ireland has not signed up to either body, but the EU has signed up to both...

The Aarhus Convention still isn't a body; it's a convention, which Ireland ratified in June of last year. Ireland has been a member of UNECE since 1955.

...and then implements the decisions via statutory instruments, which the Irish parliament has no power or competence to even discuss, let alone alter.

My simple point is not about whether that is good, bad or indifferent, but that illustrates the globalisation of decision making, and the increasing lack of power citizens now have about the laws which they have no ability to influence or make, but which they still have to obey.

Ironically, the Aarhus convention requires public consultations.

Most citizens of the EU (and the world) are hazy about this...

Indeed.

PercyBlakeney · 25-09-2013 03:57PM

View wrote: »

Ireland actively supported the EU's accession to both such conventions. Hence, Ireland supports measures adopted as a result of these conventions.

Why therefore are we supposed to have problem with this?

Words are important here. Ireland did support the EU (it really had no option but to support the EU). All countries in the EU i "supported" the EU in that sense.

That's not the same thing as all citizens of the EU, in those individual countries supported the decision, or even understood or still understand it. Or that citizens of other countries who signed up understood it or understand it.

"We" have to all decide individually whether this is, or might become, an issue for ourselves, individually.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Aarhus Convention still isn't a body; it's a convention, which Ireland ratified in June of last year. Ireland has been a member of UNECE since 1955. Ironically, the Aarhus convention requires public consultations. Indeed.

I am indebted to your kind attention to detail which is not unimportant.

However the substantive issue is, perhaps, of more import

oscarBravo · 25-09-2013 04:07PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Words are important here. Ireland did support the EU (it really had no option but to support the EU). All countries in the EU i "supported" the EU in that sense.

That's not the same thing as all citizens of the EU, in those individual countries supported the decision, or even understood or still understand it. Or that citizens of other countries who signed up understood it or understand it.

The citizens of each EU member state elect governments to make decisions on their behalf, including decisions as to what treaties and conventions they should sign up to.

"We" have to all decide individually whether this is, or might become, an issue for ourselves, individually.

Sure. And if enough people in (say) Ireland decide that this is a big enough issue to care about, we'll have a referendum on changing article 29 of our constitution, which gives our elected representatives the power to sign up to such treaties.

I am indebted to your kind attention to detail which is not unimportant.

However the substantive issue is, perhaps, of more import

If you can explain what the substantive issue is without getting your basic facts wrong, we can have a discussion about it.

View · 25-09-2013 04:49PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Words are important here. Ireland did support the EU (it really had no option but to support the EU).

This statement is nonsense.

Ireland had a choice which it duly exercised. Not only that but we had a veto on the decision itself.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

That's not the same thing as all citizens of the EU, in those individual countries supported the decision, or even understood or still understand it.

There is no legislation adopted anywhere that requires ALL citizens to approve it. You'd wouldn't get a local by-law through if you gave each citizen a veto on each of our laws.

PercyBlakeney · 26-09-2013 06:57AM

View wrote: »

This statement is nonsense.

Ireland had a choice which it duly exercised. Not only that but we had a veto on the decision itself.

There is no legislation adopted anywhere that requires ALL citizens to approve it. You'd wouldn't get a local by-law through if you gave each citizen a veto on each of our laws.

If it's not an issue for you that our duly elected TD's are forbidden to even discuss, alter or vote on some or many of the laws which we are all forced to obey, then its not an issue for you.

View · 26-09-2013 10:23AM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

If it's not an issue for you that our duly elected TD's are forbidden to even discuss, alter or vote on some or many of the laws which we are all forced to obey, then its not an issue for you.

Our TDs are not forbidden from discussing EU laws, indeed both the Oireachtas and the government are notified of proposed laws at the very start of the ordinary legislative process so they can raise objections during the process.

As it is, proposals must be approved by MEPs (in all bar a few cases) and (the Council of) Ministers to become law.

Those procedures have been approved by both the Oireachtas and the electorate in referenda. It sounds like you have a problem with our decisions to approve the 1972 referendum on membership and the subsequent referenda which altered the legislative process.

PercyBlakeney · 26-09-2013 11:02AM

View wrote: »

Our TDs are not forbidden from discussing EU laws, indeed both the Oireachtas and the government are notified of proposed laws at the very start of the ordinary legislative process so they can raise objections during the process.

As it is, proposals must be approved by MEPs (in all bar a few cases) and (the Council of) Ministers to become law.

Those procedures have been approved by both the Oireachtas and the electorate in referenda. It sounds like you have a problem with our decisions to approve the 1972 referendum on membership and the subsequent referenda which altered the legislative process.

Either you are not aware of how Statutory Instruments work, or you are talking about how other legislation gets into law across the EU.

Lemming · 26-09-2013 12:09PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Either you are not aware of how Statutory Instruments work

Clearly you don't. Who drafts & enacts an SI in Ireland exactly ... oh wait; that'd be the Irish government.

Not the EU.

PercyBlakeney · 26-09-2013 12:28PM

Lemming wrote: »

Clearly you don't. Who drafts & enacts an SI in Ireland exactly ... oh wait; that'd be the Irish government.

Not the EU.

I am afraid you are, simply, factually incorrect. The Si's are drafted not by the governments, but by the legal office of the relevant government department. SI's from the EU are not subjected to parlimentary or governmental scrutiny, and must be passed into law as a whole and without government or parliamentary interference.

Statutory instruments (SIs) are whats known as a type of delegated legislation.

oscarBravo · 26-09-2013 01:17PM

Statutory Instruments are used (among other things) to transpose EU directives into Irish law. Those directives are agreed between the elected governments of the member states, under the authority vested in those governments by their respective constitutional arrangements, and are largely subject to scrutiny by the directly-elected European Parliament.

View · 26-09-2013 02:03PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Either you are not aware of how Statutory Instruments work, or you are talking about how other legislation gets into law across the EU.

I am fully aware of how SIs work.

What exactly is the problem with a Minister using a legal instrument to give effect to measure agreed to at EU level as part of the EU's legislative process?

We agreed - in a referendum in 1972 - that we would implement EU laws here. Are you saying we should not have done so? Because, if so, we would not be members of the EU today.

McDave · 26-09-2013 06:30PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

WE have to realise that the EU, itself, is not the real body which is governing. More rules in fact originate in global bodies above the EU, with the EU just given the task of enforcing thses rules usually by statutory instruments which no individual countries governments are allowed to alter, and no national parliament allowed to question.

The ideas for rules actually tend to come from local or national bodies/parliaments. Most EU directives are approximations of national laws, harmonising them at European level. The inspiration actually comes from below, catches on in a number of countries, and once a critical mass of interest/relevance is reached, it crosses over into a more pan-national affair.

It is not, as you imply, as if factories of law-obsessed gnomes in international organisations based in Switzerland or New York come up with ideas to force on the people of Europe or the world.

PercyBlakeney · 27-09-2013 10:21AM

View wrote: »

.

What exactly is the problem with a Minister using a legal instrument to give effect to measure agreed to at EU level as part of the EU's legislative process?

The problem, if there is one, is something that we have to decide for ourselves.
The problem is simple; the countries in the EU are democracies and to most people that means the rule of the people by the people.

In the case of SI’s from the EU, the SI’s are not subject to any parliamentary or governmental scrutiny in any country, and every country has to implement the SI without its parliament or government ( ie it’s people) being able to discuss or change the SI in any way.

You may well decide it’s not a problem, others may, and do, disagree. That’s how a democracy works, where all opinions are valid and allowed to be expressed.

View wrote: »

We agreed - in a referendum in 1972 - that we would implement EU laws here. Are you saying we should not have done so? Because, if so, we would not be members of the EU today.

Most people who voted in that referendum are now dead, and most people of voting age today were prohibited from voting in that referendum.

If I wanted to say “we” should not have done so, then that’s what I would have said. Having said that, it would be interesting to ask every voter across the EU if they agree to be ruled by SI’s today, or if that’s what they thought they were voting for in previous votes or referenda.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Statutory Instruments are used (among other things) to transpose EU directives into Irish law. Those directives are agreed between the elected governments of the member states, under the authority vested in those governments by their respective constitutional arrangements, and are largely subject to scrutiny by the directly-elected European Parliament.

Sure, and to have them “largely” ( whatever that means) scrutinised by the EU parliament might be good enough for you, although it may not be good enough for others.

What is the point of national parliaments if non national institutions have the power to bypass national parliaments and force national parliaments to implement laws the national parliaments are not allow to interfere with in any way?

McDave wrote: »

The ideas for rules actually tend to come from local or national bodies/parliaments. Most EU directives are approximations of national laws, harmonising them at European level. The inspiration actually comes from below, catches on in a number of countries, and once a critical mass of interest/relevance is reached, it crosses over into a more pan-national affair.

It is not, as you imply, as if factories of law-obsessed gnomes in international organisations based in Switzerland or New York come up with ideas to force on the people of Europe or the world.

Let’s agree, for the sake of argument, that we are all happy with those “most EU directives” about which you speak. Are you equally happy that laws which come to each EU member country from outside the EU, and which are implemented into each individual countries laws via the EU’s statutory instruments, so that these laws are implemented in a way that no national parliament is allowed to change, alter or in any was prevent those laws being implemented?

It may well be you have no issue with this, and it may well be you think this is democracy in action, but if so there are a growing number who don’t agree with that view.

Scofflaw · 27-09-2013 01:20PM

In the case of SI’s from the EU, the SI’s are not subject to any parliamentary or governmental scrutiny in any country, and every country has to implement the SI without its parliament or government ( ie it’s people) being able to discuss or change the SI in any way.

That's highly inaccurate.

First, while the Commission initiates EU legislation, it usually does so in response to requests from the Council or the Parliament, usually the former. The existence of EU legislation is therefore driven primarily by the national governments via the Council. The general agenda for the EU is also set by the national governments acting as the European Council.

Second, all draft EU legislation is scrutinised by Coreper, the permanent representations of the Member States in Brussels - these are composed of senior civil servants and national experts under political control, who make recommendations on changes to the legislation.

Third, EU legislation must be passed both by the Council and (increasingly) the Parliament, who both have the power to amend it. That, with (2), means that EU legislation has been discussed and changed by national governments.

Fourth, Lisbon introduced a system whereby national parliaments can oppose EU legislation directly in advance, so there is now an additional channel which goes direct to the national legislatures rather than the national governments.

The EU is not separate from the Member States. It is a joint action framework. All EU legislation must be acceptable to the Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 27-09-2013 01:39PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The problem, if there is one, is something that we have to decide for ourselves.

We have already decided this. You seem to have a problem with the decision though.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

In the case of SI’s from the EU,

A SI is an Irish legal measure used to implement Irish law be it of domestic or other origin.

Perhaps you could clarify exactly the EU legal measure you are referrring to when you talk about a "SI from the EU"?

View · 27-09-2013 01:51PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Most people who voted in that referendum are now dead, and most people of voting age today were prohibited from voting in that referendum.

The issue of whether people who voted in a referendum are dead or alive doesn't effect the validity of their decision. It stands unless it is overturned by a subsequent majority decision.

As it is, I should point out that the legal basis for us using referenda is a decision in an 1936 (or 37) referendum to approve the Constitution with its provisions for the use of referenda.

If your argument is the 1972 decision somehow becomes invalid as the electorate of that referendum dies off then as nearly all the electorate of the 1936 referendum are now deceased that means - according to your logic - there is no longer a valid legal basis for us to hold referenda any longer.

Indeed there isn't even a basis for us being independent as the electorate of 1918-22 are now deceased. In that case, will you run the Union Flag up on the GPO for us? :-)

McDave · 27-09-2013 08:48PM

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Let’s agree, for the sake of argument, that we are all happy with those “most EU directives” about which you speak. Are you equally happy that laws which come to each EU member country from outside the EU, and which are implemented into each individual countries laws via the EU’s statutory instruments, so that these laws are implemented in a way that no national parliament is allowed to change, alter or in any was prevent those laws being implemented?

It may well be you have no issue with this, and it may well be you think this is democracy in action, but if so there are a growing number who don’t agree with that view.

Less posturing and more specifics please. Which laws? Some examples. So we can have a real discussion, rather than useless polemic based on half-baked prejudice.

Scofflaw · 27-09-2013 10:52PM

View wrote: »

We have already decided this. You seem to have a problem with the decision though.

A SI is an Irish legal measure used to implement Irish law be it of domestic or other origin.

Perhaps you could clarify exactly the EU legal measure you are referrring to when you talk about a "SI from the EU"?

I'd presume he's referring to Regulations, which don't require transposition into national law, at least individually (we have a blanket Act that gives them force). They're not really a good analogy for SIs, though, because an SI is created by executive fiat, and is assumed passed unless opposed by the Dáil.

The only close analogy of that in EU legislation is a Regulation created by the Commission where it has been delegated the power to do so, which like an SI, is created by executive fiat and assumed passed unless rejected specifically by the Council. Those are generally very minor in effect, though, typically something like changing the intervention quota for Aeolian Island grapes. They are not policy-making legislation, but implementing legislation, and are subordinate legally to any contradictory Council legislation, which is not the case for Irish SIs, which can be very wide in scope.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 11-11-2013 12:03PM

McDave wrote: »

Less posturing and more specifics please. Which laws? Some examples. So we can have a real discussion, rather than useless polemic based on half-baked prejudice.

Unfortunately many people vote on the basis of half baked prejudice and emotion. We can't simply instruct others how to reach their conclusions or how to vote.

Fukuoka Eagle · 13-11-2013 04:06PM

I'll be voting to leave the EU when the referendum comes along.

The Corinthian · 13-11-2013 04:12PM

Fukuoka Eagle wrote: »

I'll be voting to leave the EU when the referendum comes along.

Thank you for sharing your well known and respected recommendation.

georgesstreet · 23-11-2013 01:28PM

It seems to me that there is a view in Ireland that to criticise is to be against something. This is, I think, a cultural difference between Ireland and the UK.

In Ireland many will recognise that often people say "yes" when they mean no and only at the last minute you will learn, often by osmosis, that "yes" in fact meant "no" all along. In, for example, the USA and the UK generally speaking people are more direct and will say "no" at the outset and not waste ones time.

Sometimes in Ireland it is thought that its better to be "nice" and not to say "no" and not to criticise.

Consequently, in ireland it is thought to criticise is to be against something, whereas in the UK it is often the case that one only criticises the things one actually cares about, in the hope of making it better.

I don't agree that the british are any more anti europe than any other nations, but its just they may be more vocal with their criticisms. I'd bet that if a vote were taken , the UK and Ireland would have similar numbers of citizens pro and con.

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments